Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Procedures, and Controls

Office of the City Auditor
City and County of
Honolulu
State of Hawai`i
Report to the Mayor
and the
City Council of Honolulu
Audit of the Department
of the Prosecuting
Attorney’s Policies,
Procedures, and
Controls,
Resolution 19-255
Report No. 20-09
December 2020

Audit of the Department of the
Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies,
Procedures, and Controls,
Resolution 19-255
A Report to the
Mayor
and the
City Council
of Honolulu
Submitted by
THE CITY AUDITOR
CITY AND COUNTY
OF HONOLULU
STATE OF HAWAI`I
Report No. 20-09
December 2020

December 4, 2020
The Honorable Ann Kobayashi, Chair
and Members
Honolulu City Council
530 South King Street, Room 202
Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813
Dear Chair Kobayashi and Councilmembers:
A copy of our report, Audit of the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Procedures, and
Controls, Resolution 19-255, is attached. This audit was conducted pursuant to Resolution 19-255,
requesting the city auditor to conduct a performance audit of the Honolulu Police Department and the
Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s policies and procedures related to employee misconduct. In order
to properly assess and evaluate these distinct city agencies, we are issuing two separate reports. This
report focuses exclusively on the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney; the audit of the Honolulu Police
Department is issued under separate cover.
The audit objectives were to:
1. Evaluate the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s (PAT) existing policies, procedures, and
controls to identify and respond to complaints or incidents concerning misconduct, retaliation,
favoritism, and abuses of power by employees;
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of PAT’s management control environment and practice elements in
correcting and preventing misconduct, retaliation, favoritism, and abuses of power by employees;
and
3. Make recommendations to improve and correct measures in PAT department’s policies, procedures,
and controls.
Due to extenuating circumstances caused by COVID-19 emergency orders, our office was unable to
complete fieldwork and issue this audit report by the November 6, 2020 deadline imposed by Resolution
19-255. On November 5, 2020, the Honolulu City Council adopted Resolution 20-267 which granted our
office’s request for a one-month extension to issue this audit report no later than December 7, 2020. I would
emphasize that the department fully cooperated with this audit and that the delay in issuing the report was
caused solely by restrictions and emergency orders related to COVID-19.
Background
In June 2019, Louis and Katherine Kealoha were convicted by a federal jury for abusing their power by
conspiring with four police officers to frame Katherine Kealoha’s uncle, Gerard Puana, for a crime he did not
commit in an effort to discredit his claim that the Kealohas stole a substantial amount of money from him and
his 100-year-old mother – Katherine’s own grandmother – Florence Puana. The former police chief and his
wife, a deputy prosecutor, entered into sentencing agreements in the case where the jury found them guilty
of conspiracy to frame Katherine’s uncle. Both Kealohas admitted in plea agreements that they defrauded
banks with elaborate schemes in order to obtain loans to fund their extravagant lifestyles. They were

Honolulu City Council
December 4, 2020
Page 2 of 2
recently sentenced for their crimes. In the wake of the Kealoha convictions for conspiracy to defraud the
United States and four counts of attempted obstruction for an official proceeding in a highly-publicized public
corruption case, the city council expressed concern that the events of the Kealoha incident should have
been evident to management and personnel within PAT long before they were brought to light by media
reports.
Audit Results
Despite the controversy and misconduct allegations in the department, the policies, procedures, and
controls have not changed significantly and more needs to be done. We found that management did not
initiate a review or evaluation of its policies and procedures that allowed one of its higher-ranking deputy
prosecutors to use the office for criminal activity. Specifically, we found that:
• The department’s conflict of interest practices are passive and reactive, and rely on voluntary staff
disclosure;
• Supervisory practices for circuit court plea bargains are inconsistent and post-case evaluations are
not designed to detect misconduct;
• The department’s handling of internal complaints is inconsistent and does not effectively identify or
address instances of misconduct; and
• The department’s internal employee complaint process lacks specific guidelines or expectation for
how complaints will be addressed.
The audit report made nine recommendations to improve the department’s policies, procedures, and
administration for identifying and administering staff complaints and misconduct.
In response to a draft of this audit report, the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney indicated that while it
was not in complete agreement with the audit’s findings, it acknowledged that it must restore the public
confidence and trust in the department lost after the Kealoha matter. Management expressed a willingness
to make improvements and address issues raised by our audit findings. The department’s comments
notwithstanding, we stand by our audit findings and recommendations. We did not make any significant
amendments to the audit report as a result of management’s response, but made technical, non-substantive
changes for purposes of accuracy, clarity, and style.
We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the cooperation and assistance provided us by the
managers and staff of the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. We are available to meet with you and
your staff to discuss this report and to provide more information. If you have any questions, please call me
at 768-3134.
Sincerely,
Troy Shimasaki
Acting City Auditor
c: Kirk Caldwell, Mayor
Roy Amemiya, Jr., Managing Director
Dwight Nadamoto, Acting Prosecuting Attorney, Department of the Prosecuting Attorney
Manuel T. Valbuena, Acting Director, Department of Budget and Fiscal Services

i
Chapter 1 Background
Introduction............................................................................................................................1
Background.............................................................................................................................1
Audit Objectives, Scope and Methodology........................................................................6
Audit Results..........................................................................................................................7
Chapter 2 Management Oversight of Professional Staff Is Insufficient to Ensure
Effective, Proactive Identification and Response to Allegations of
Misconduct by Employees
Conflict of Interest Oversight Relies on Self-Reporting...................................................9
Effective Supervision of Staff Attorneys is Limited........................................................12
Circuit and Family Court Post-Case Evaluations Are Not Designed to Detect
Misconduct.......................................................................................................................16
The Department Lacks a Formal Internal Evaluation System.......................................17
Oversight of the Prosecuting Attorney is Limited..........................................................19
Recommendations...............................................................................................................20
Chapter 3 Complaint Handling Needs Improvement to Prevent Mismanagement
and Inappropriate Behavior
Department Has an Informal Complaint Process...........................................................21
The Department Lacks a Formal Process to Deal With Attorney Misconduct...........28
Chapter 4 Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusion............................................................................................................................33
Management Response.......................................................................................................34
Appendices
Appendix A Conflict Case Policy.............................................................................................................49
Appendix B Resolution 19-255.................................................................................................................51
Appendix C Resolution 20-267.................................................................................................................55
Table of Contents

ii
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1.1 Organizational Chart - Department of the Prosecuting Attorney ..................................4
Exhibit 1.2 Department of the Prosecuting Attorney - Spending and Staffing,
FY 2015 - FY 2019..............................................................................................................5
Exhibit 2.1 Conflict of Interest Process..................................................................................................10
Exhibit 2.2 Number of Cases FY 2015 to FY 2019................................................................................13
Exhibit 2.3 Plea Bargaining Supervisory Review - Felony Case Process ........................................14
Exhibit 2.4 Circuit Court Case Evaluation and Family Court Case Evaluations Supervisory
Review Process................................................................................................................16
Exhibit 3.1 Complaint Process................................................................................................................23
Exhibit 3.2 Complaint Review................................................................................................................25
Exhibit 3.3 Jurisdiction Comparison on Complaint’s Handling.......................................................30

Chapter 1: Background
1
Chapter 1
Background
On October 3, 2019, the Honolulu City Council adopted
Resolution 19-255, requesting the city auditor to conduct a
performance audit of the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney
(PAT). The resolution requested that the city auditor determine
whether the department’s existing policies, procedures, and
controls are sufficient to prevent similar misconduct, retaliation,
favoritism, and abuses of power by their respective employees;
whether the department complied with its existing policies,
procedures, and controls in its internal operations during the time
periods reflected in the First and Second Superseding Indictments
of the alleged misconduct by Louis and Katherine Kealoha; and
provide recommendations as to improvements and corrective
measures in the department’s policies, procedures, and controls
so as to minimize future managerial and operational breakdowns.
The city council expressed concern that the events of the Kealoha
incident should have been evident to management and personnel
within PAT long before they were brought to light by media
reports about the mailbox case and the pending indictments
against Louis Kealoha and Katherine Kealoha.
To accomplish the charter’s mandate to serve and advance
the general welfare and safety of Honolulu residents, PAT
investigates and prosecutes violations of all statutes, ordinances,
and regulations for which there are criminal sanctions occurring
within the City and County of Honolulu. The department
also represents the people and the State of Hawai’i in criminal
proceedings held in district court, circuit court, and family court.
The department handles appeals and other matters heard by the
Hawai’i Intermediate Court of Appeals and Hawai’i Supreme
Court, as well as the United States District Court of Hawai’i, the
9th
Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.
PAT also provides services to victims of crime. The Department’s
mission is to promote and ensure public safety and order through
effective, efficient, and just prosecution.
Prosecuting attorneys must adhere to the Hawai‘i Rules of
Professional Conduct Rule 3.8, Performing the Duty of Public
Introduction
Background

2
Prosecutor or Other Government Lawyer. A public prosecutor or
other government lawyer shall:
(a) not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges
when (the prosecutor or government lawyer) knows or it is
obvious that the charges are not supported by probable
cause; and
(b) make timely disclosure of all evidence or information
known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt
of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection
with sentencing, disclose to the defense all unprivileged
mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except
when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a
protective order of the tribunal.
In addition to Rule 3.8, all prosecuting attorneys are mandated to
follow applicable provisions of the Hawaii Rules of Professional
Conduct such as Rule 1.7 - Conflict of Interest: General Rule,
Rule 1.9 - Conflict of Interest: Former Client, Rule 1.11 - Special
Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers
and Employees, and Rule 8.4 - Misconduct. Proof beyond a
reasonable doubt (Sect. 701-114, Hawaii Revised Statutes) is the
legal standard that the prosecution must meet in order to find a
criminal defendant guilty of a crime.
PAT officials and employees are required to file financial
disclosure forms annually (January 31 due date) with the
Ethics Commission and reference financial activities covering
the preceding calendar year for each employee, their spouse
and dependent children. Categories include income, creditors,
ownership or interests in businesses in Hawai‘i, ownership or
interests transferred, fiduciary positions, creditor interests in
insolvent business, clients personally represented before city
agencies, real property owned, and real property transferred.
Failure to file, late filing, and errors and omissions may subject
an employee to discipline, a civil fine, or both. The financial
disclosure statement is a public record.
PAT employees are also required to report, in writing, any conflict
of interest to his or her appointing authority, as well as to the
Ethics Commission, as mandated by § 11-103, Revised Charter of
Honolulu (RCH). The charter states in relevant part, Disclosure of
Interest - Any elected or appointed officer or employee who possesses or
acquires such interests as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with
the public interest shall make full disclosure in writing to such person’s
appointing authority and to the ethics commission, at any time such
conflict becomes apparent. Such disclosure statements shall be made a

3
matter of public record and be filed with the city clerk. The purpose
of the law prohibiting conflicts of interest is to prevent a public
official from placing himself or herself in a position of conflict,
even if the official would not take advantage of the conflict.

The department’s responsibilities are divided among the
following divisions:
1. Administration – Provides direction over department
programs and activities; performs fiscal, budgeting, personnel,
planning, legislative, audio/visual, and investigate services to
support departmental programs.
2. Investigative Services Division – Provides security for
department personnel and facilities, locates material witnesses,
serves warrants and subpoenas, and conducts investigations
for select cases pending trial.
3. Misdemeanor Prosecution Division – Represents the state
in all traffic infractions, violations and criminal offenses
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one year.
4. Felony Prosecution Division – Prosecutes felony and
misdemeanor jury-demand crimes committed in the City and
County of Honolulu, except for cases referred to the Special
Prosecution Division. Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys represent
the state in criminal proceedings before the Circuit Court of
the First Circuit including specialty programs which include
Drug, Mental Health, Veterans’ courts, and HOPE Probation.
5. Special Prosecution Division – Prosecutes crimes committed
in the City and County of Honolulu that require extensive or
special handling from initial referral to final disposition which
include crimes committed by career criminals, crimes against
the elderly, sex crimes, and special projects.
6. Family Division – Prosecutes all felony and misdemeanor
crimes committed in the City and County of Honolulu
involving domestic violence, non-sexual child abuse, and
juvenile offenders.
7. Screening/Intake Division – Screens and initiates charges
for a significant majority of felony cases that do not involve
domestic violence, elder abuse, certain career criminal cases
or sexual assault. The division prepares and presents cases at
preliminary hearings, including the grand jury. The division
also processes charging documents and prepares felony cases
for arraignment and plea at circuit court.

4
8. Appellate Division – Represents the department in appeals
before the State appellate courts and federal courts that
include the United States District Court of Hawai‘i, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme
Court. The division also provides trial attorneys and other
employees with legal research assistance and direction on
legal issues.
9. Victim Witness Kokua Services Division – Assists victims
and witnesses of crimes and provides outreach and support
services for victims of domestic abuse, both children and
adults. The division’s services include crisis counseling and
social service referrals; safety planning information for victims
of domestic abuse; information about the criminal justice
system; notification of case status and the custody status
of offenders; accompanying victims or witnesses to court
and coordinating their return to the neighbor islands and
mainland; and handling of misdemeanor complaints.
Exhibit 1.1
Organizational Chart - Department of the Prosecuting
Attorney
Source: Department of the Prosecuting Attorney
Administration
Prosecution
Investigative
Services
Misdemeanor
Prosecutor
Felony Prosecutor
Special
Prosecution
Family Screening/Intake
Appellate
Victim/Witness
Victim/Witness
Kokua Services

5
In FY 2019, PAT operating expenditures totaled $23.84 million and
recorded $3.39 million in revenues. Authorized staffing totaled
289 full time equivalent positions, with 63 vacancies in FY 2019.
Total overtime expenditures increased 196 percent from $54,043
in FY 2018 to $159,743 in FY 2019. PAT attributed this increase to
the mass recall of old bench warrants and staff vacancies in the
Misdemeanor/Traffic Division and Witness Assistance Division.
Vacancies increased by 9 percent from FY 2018 to FY 2019. The
department attributes this increase to the difficulty in filling entry
level, clerical typist positions, and victim witness counselors.
Exhibit 1.2
Department of the Prosecuting Attorney - Spending and Staffing, FY 2015 - FY 2019
Source: Department of Budget and Fiscal Services
Staffing
Overtime
Expenditures
Year
Revenue
($ millions)
Total
Operating
Expenditures
($ millions)
Total
Authorized
FTE
Total
Vacant
FTE
Cost Per
FTE Total
Non-
Holiday
FY 2015 $2.3 $20.4 289 54 $70,601 $12,700 $12,022
FY 2016 $2.37 $21.6 289 56 $74,736 $25,501 $25,392
FY 2017 $2.89 $23.65 289 51 $81,547 $55,709 $54,069
FY 2018 $2.82 $22.88 289 58 $79,172 $54,043 $50,590
FY 2019 $3.39 $23.84 289 63 $82,480 $159,743 $155,756
Change
from last
year 20% 4% 0% 9% 4% 196% 208%
Change
over last
5 years 47% 17% 0% 17% 17% 1158% 1196%
The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney utilizes a database
management system to manage its legal casework. The program,
titled Prosecutor by Karpel (PBK), is administered by Karpel
Solutions in its HOSTED by KARPEL secure Microsoft Azure
Government cloud service. This browser-based case management
program stores PAT’s data and work-related events in a single
database, and can cross-reference a defendant’s entire criminal
history in a single search. PBK also allows deputy prosecutors to
virtually access and review their cases from laptops in court via
the internet rather than having to transport bulky paper files.

6
PAT is authorized access to Honolulu Police Department
(HPD) and the state Judiciary’s databases. HPD provides PAT
with access to its police reports and requires all users to sign a
confidentiality policy agreement. HPD can, and does, monitor
user access and notifies PAT of any irregularities. For all court
cases, the judiciary system (JIMS/JEFS) has its own tracking
system that records and/or documents court proceedings to
include the attorneys appearing on record, the position taken
by the attorneys, and the action taken by the court. Examples of
cases include traffic citations, terroristic threatening, littering, and
disorderly conduct. PAT is able to access and track cases in JIMS
using trial by name, police report number, and court case number.
HPD offers digital recorded records, telecommunication records,
and body worn camera footage records to PAT for use in their
cases. PAT management indicated that police reports are a large
source of the cases ultimately conferred for prosecution by the
department.
This audit was conducted pursuant to city council Resolution 19-
255, requesting the city auditor to conduct a performance audit of
the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s policies, procedures,
and controls.
The audit objectives were to:
1. Evaluate the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s
existing policies, procedures, and controls to identify and
respond to complaints or incidents concerning misconduct,
retaliation, favoritism, and abuses of power by employees;
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of PAT’s management control
environment and practice elements in correcting and
preventing misconduct, retaliation, favoritism, and abuses of
power by employees; and
3. Make recommendations to improve and correct measures in
PAT department’s policies, procedures, and controls.

For this audit, we reviewed and analyzed department policies,
procedures, position descriptions, rules of professional conduct,
and city-related policies. We examined PAT practices and
interviewed and held discussions with pertinent management and
attorneys. We analyzed 30 case files pertaining to misdemeanor
and felony cases and 22 internal complaint files from FY 2015 to
FY 2019. We reviewed best practices nationally and analyzed
operations and management structures from comparable
Audit Objectives,
Scope and
Methodology

7
jurisdictions. We examined internal controls applicable to
the audit objectives. Our review was conducted using the
department’s system of record, PBK. We determined it to be a
reliable source for the department’s information handling needs
and further determined that the data was sufficiently valid and
reliable for our review.
This performance audit was performed in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS). The
audit was performed from November 2019 to September 2020.
Those standards require that auditors plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for findings and conclusions based on audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained in this audit provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objectives.
Despite the high-profile allegations involving one of its former
Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys, the department did not initiate
substantive changes to its policies, procedures and internal
controls. During our review, we found that management did not
initiate a review or evaluation of its policies and procedures that
allowed one of its higher-ranking deputy prosecutors to use the
office for criminal activity. The department continues to follow
older versions of its policies and procedures established by former
administrators. The department’s priority is on processing its
heavy workload, rather than managing its staff to ensure that
cases are performed correctly and accordance with departmental
and other professional standards. The department’s current
policies, procedures and controls are not designed to regularly
monitor for potential misconduct or workplace errors.
Supervisors do not sufficiently monitor attorney performance due
to the lack of resources and priority to conduct such reviews. As
a result, the department takes action on attorney work deficiency,
irregularity, or questionable conduct after-the-fact. Monitoring
of staff performance is uneven because the department’s culture
of trust placed on attorneys, attorney professionalism, and the
personal styles of supervision.
The department lacks adequate policies, procedures, and
guidelines for handling internal complaints. Staff complaints are
often directed outside the department for resolution. Complaints
that are handled internally are not treated equitably and lack
transparency. Based on our review, current policies, procedures,
Audit Results

8
and controls are inadequate to effectively identify or correct
employee misconduct or non-compliance with operational
requirements.

Chapter 2: Management Oversight of Professional Staff Is Insufficient to Ensure Effective, Proactive Identification and Response to
Allegations of Misconduct by Employees
9
Chapter 2
Management Oversight of Professional Staff
Is Insufficient to Ensure Effective, Proactive
Identification and Response to Allegations of
Misconduct by Employees
The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney (PAT) is made up
of professional attorneys and staff who are expected to act in
a professional and ethical manner commensurate with their
respective positions.
To evaluate the extent to which PAT’s existing policies,
procedures and controls are sufficient oversight to prevent
incidents of misconduct, retaliation, favoritism, and abuses of
power, we reviewed several of PAT’s internal control practices
including those dealing with: conflicts of interest, supervision
of professional staff, plea bargaining oversight, post-case
evaluations, and personnel evaluations. We found that oversight
of existing departmental practices in these areas is insufficient to
ensure the proactive management and guidance of staff.
PAT staff are subject to state, city and county, and professional
requirements to identify and disclose all instances of potential
conflict of interest. The department’s policy on conflict of interest
establishes a self-reporting rule for staff attorneys to disclose
potential conflicts of interest when assigned to prosecution cases.
In accordance with this policy, an attorney with a conflict must
report that conflict to management and the attorney recuses him
or herself from the case after management’s review or further
handling from the attorney general. The current Conflict Case
Policy, Administrative Policy, 2012-007 (Appendix A), requires
that all potential conflict cases be brought to the first deputy
prosecuting attorney’s attention.
The first deputy prosecuting attorney reviews the case and
decides whether the conflict can be handled internally or should
be referred to the attorney general for further consideration.
When feasible, conflicts are resolved internally if adequate
measures can be taken to manage the staff person and his or her
potential conflict. This includes preventing the staff person from
accessing cases in the department’s case database, and ensuring
that access to case information is on a need-to-know basis only.
This process is identified in Exhibit 2.1.
Conflict of Interest
Oversight Relies on
Self-Reporting

10
We reviewed the current process for how an attorney identifies
and reports a potential conflict of interest; how PAT handled these
potential conflict of interest situations; and whether cases were
referred to the state Attorney General for further handling. We
found that the current approach for identifying and responding
to conflicts of interest appear insufficient to identify and respond
to potential conflict of interest situations because it does not
provide enough guidance and information. Furthermore, it does
not provide sufficient guidance and information on situations that
should be avoided, or responsibilities to preserve an attorney’s
independence.
During our review, we found that:
• The current policy is operational in nature. It does not
discuss how to identify such situations, when to report
them, what are considered conflict situations, or what
should be done to avoid them;
• PAT has not developed clear, well-defined guidelines or
tools for its attorneys to aid them with identifying and
reporting conflict of interest situations for management
attention;
• PAT does not provide definitions or examples in its
policies to define what conflict of interest situations are;
Exhibit 2.1
Conflict of Interest Process
Source: OCA Analysis
Attorney Has a
Conflict of Interest
Resolve Internally by
Management
Forward to Attorney
General for Further
Handling
Recuse Attorney
From the Case
Management Review
Self Report to First
Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney
Concludes
No Conflict
Attorney
Proceeds the
Case
Concludes
Conflict

11
• There is no regular or routine preventive assessment or
self-declaration conducted by management prior to case
assignment to identify personal or professional conflicts,
or personal attitudes, beliefs, biases or other preconceived
notions that may affect independence; and
• PAT has not developed specific criteria to identify and
respond to conflicts of interest or independence situations.
We found that PAT’s conflict of interest practices are passive
and reactive, and rely on the voluntary disclosure by staff. We
reviewed a report of conflicts of interest for the five-year period
FY 2015 to FY 2019 and found that there were only four cases
reported during this period. These four cases were all forwarded
to the Attorney General for further handling in 2019 and 2020.In
a follow-up comment response, PAT advised that it recorded 15
conflict of interest cases between FY 2015 and FY 2019 that were
referred to the Attorney General. These cases were referred before
and after the Kealoha indictments. However, these cases were
not included in the case inventory provided to us during audit
fieldwork and were identified after fieldwork was completed. As
a result, these cases were excluded from our review.
A 2017 article in the Boston College Law Review discusses
prosecutor conflicts of interest and how they may impact the
criminal justice system. It indicated that prosecutors’ conflicts of
interest are not like those of private attorneys. Private attorneys
have a conflict of interest when they are materially limited in
their ability to serve their clients due to a personal interest or
relationship. Prosecutors’ clients are the state, the public, or the
sovereign interest in the administration of justice, whose interests
are more difficult to define. The article argues that conflicts can
arise not only out of personal and professional relationships
and financial interests, but can also include any personal belief,
ambition, or institutional interest that undermines their ability to
pursue justice in a fair way.
The department could strengthen its conflict of interest protocols
by having management develop a routine assessment procedure
prepared by prosecutors and reviewed and approved in writing
by management. The signed document would take into account
the conflict of interest guidelines from the state professional rules,
PAT’s criteria, and consideration of other pertinent independence
factors. In addition, while it is presumed that staff understand
what constitutes a conflict of interest, having published
departmental guidelines defining and describing conflicts of
interest would ensure that staff clearly understand what should be
reported.

12
Documentation provides management with support should an
undisclosed conflict of interest be discovered and enhances PAT’s
assurance that potential conflicts of interest are being disclosed.
While this up-front affirmation still relies on voluntary self-
disclosure, it places department staff in a position to actively
evaluate and affirm their independence, rather than relying
on future disclosure that may be impacted by rationalization,
justification, or omission over time.
Attorney supervision provides the department with the
opportunity to monitor, review and provide general oversight
over the actions of staff. It also allows management to identify
potential misconduct, retaliation, favoritism, or abuses of power.
Effective supervision also allows management to implement
appropriate intervention strategies. We found that while PAT has
a supervisory structure, supervisory staff contend that the ability
to effectively employ this strategy is hampered by their caseload
volume.
Based on our discussions with attorneys, the current caseload
limits the time and resources needed to closely supervise staff
attorneys. There is personal pressure caused by individual
attorney workloads and the need to move cases through
the process of charging, resolving, and/or sending cases to
prosecution. Supervisors have little time to effectively supervise
or track all the cases. As a result, supervisors rely on their
relationship with subordinates and trust their staff to self-manage
administrative tasks that include monitoring and oversight.
Caseloads have increased steadily between FY 2015 and FY 2019,
which put a strain on department resources and ability to exercise
sufficient staff supervision. Over the past five years, the total
number of cases accepted has increased 75 percent from 16,348
total cases accepted in FY 2015 to 28,635 total cases accepted in
FY 2019. The table below shows the number of cases over the last
five years.
Effective
Supervision of Staff
Attorneys is Limited

13
While we acknowledge the increasing workload on PAT staff, and
the strain it places on department resources, it does not absolve
management from its supervisory duties. By prioritizing the
department’s caseload, management did not commit sufficient
resources to monitoring staff and enforcing existing guidelines.
The department’s reliance on a self-regulated supervisory
approach falls short of sufficient supervision.
We reviewed the supervisory review process for plea bargains for
circuit court cases. Exhibit 2.3 depicts the process.
Exhibit 2.2
Number of Cases FY 2015 to FY 2019
Total Cases Felony Jury Trials
White
Collar
Crime
Fiscal
Year Accepted Resolved1
Total
Convictions2
Total Non-
Convictions
Murder
Cases
Elder
Abuse
Cases
Felony
Domestic
Violence
Cases3
Total Cases
FY 2015 16,348 12,394 23 64 10 199 512 16
FY 2016 28,439 14,665 28 37 8 152 471 20
FY 2017 29,102 15,329 28 27 12 195 592 15
FY 2018 29,489 9,288 53 42 8 217 553 19
FY 2019 28,635 22,523 54 38 9 205 418 14
1
Resolved statistic records the date a case was resolved and recognizes that cases may take years to complete and be
recorded in different year than initiated.
2
As of FY 2018, convictions include split decisions and felony charged defendants found guilty of a lesser crime.
3
Felony Domestic Violence cases are reported by calendar year. Total includes cases charged, reclassified, and declined.
Source: FY 2019 Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report and the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney
Supervisory practices
for circuit court
plea bargains are
inconsistent

14
We found that level of detail in the supervisory review varied
significantly among the 30 cases we assessed. Interviews with
attorneys indicated that supervising attorneys handle this process
differently. While we recognize that the plea bargain process is
necessarily unique to each case, there should be some consistency
with supervisory review.
We found no common approach, standard or guideline for how
supervisors handle and review plea bargaining in circuit court
cases. Instead, it appeared that each supervisor had developed
their own evaluation process for handling and reviewing plea
bargaining for circuit court cases. For example, while reviewing
plea bargain approvals, one supervisor would orally discuss
the charges with attorneys and before granting approval, while
another would review documentation and then approve. Based
on our discussion with attorneys, concerns were raised that the
non-standardized approach for supervisory review could result
in uneven decision-making related to plea bargains and that key
elements of the case review could be missed.
Exhibit 2.3
Plea Bargaining Supervisory Review - Felony Case Process
Source: PAT’S Plea Bargaining Form for Circuit Court Cases and OCA Analysis
Plea Bargain Prepared by
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Submit for
Approval To:
Reviewed &
Approved by Team
Captain
Reviewed &
Approved by Division
Chief
Reviewed &
Approved by First
Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney
Plea Bargain
Proceeds

15
We judgmentally reviewed 30 case files pertaining to
misdemeanors and felony cases for the period FY 2015 to FY 2019.
Due to the nature of each case and subjects, not all cases would
require a plea bargain. Of the 30 files reviewed, 4 recorded a plea
bargain in circuit court. We found that one of the plea bargaining
forms did not contain requisite approvals and merely contained
a paragraph recommendation instead. This example violated
departmental policy because the supervisory activity in this
example is absent. Although we found only one instance where
the policy was not followed, the potential impact on a criminal
case can be significant. Additionally, proper supervision and
oversight would ensure that a plea bargain recommendation does
not involve any potential misconduct or error in moving the case
forward. In this case, if a misconduct or error did occur, it would
only be identified during the supervisors case evaluation after
the case was closed, disposition is final, and decision cannot be
changed.
We also found that there is an opportunity for supervisory
comment when finalizing a plea bargain. However, we found
there is insufficient case supervision up to this completion review
point. Based on our assessment of the 30 plea bargaining cases in
our sample and discussions with staff attorneys:
• We could not verify any formal supervisory assessment
tool to track plea bargain outcomes because the
department does not track this type of information.
• There is no monitoring of case progress unless a supervisor
reviews the plea bargain or a problem is brought to their
attention.
• Supervisors were not actively monitoring cases, but were
moving them along because of the court imposed timelines
and deadlines.
In another example we found that there is varying quality to the
depth of supervisory review. One supervisor may take an added
step to review case details in PAT’s PBK system to obtain more
background and assurance of adequate support, while others
merely review what is written on the plea bargaining approval
form. This inconsistent oversight can lead to uneven assessment
and decision-making for plea bargain approvals. Furthermore,
the lack of standardization leaves the plea bargaining process
vulnerable to staff attorney misconduct and errors in judgment.
Post plea bargain
case review is also
inconsistent

16
The department’s current supervisory approach lacks a detailed
supervisory checklists to ensure that certain tasks have been
completed. Having a detailed guideline for supervisors would
lead to more consistent evaluation and better handling of cases. A
checklist would enhance current processes and procedures.
The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney utilizes a Case
Evaluation Form for all circuit court felony cases and related
misdemeanors, and family court felony cases. These forms are
completed after a case has been concluded. This form provides
chronological case information such as pre-trial information,
pre-trials motions, disposition, and rational for case dismissals.
Forms are signed off by the trial prosecutor, supervisor, division
chief, and first deputy prosecuting attorney. Copies of the form
are routed to (1) Screening and Intake and other units involved
in the case, and (2) the investigative agency responsible for the
investigation. The purpose of the form is to provide feedback to
the investigating agency and the charging deputy and its division.
Although completed post-case, the information provided in this
evaluation presents an opportunity for supervisors to evaluate
how a case was handled and to identify any missteps or actions
that need correction. The flowchart below depicts the supervisory
process.
Circuit and Family
Court Post-Case
Evaluations Are Not
Designed to Detect
Misconduct
Exhibit 2.4
Circuit Court Case Evaluation and Family Court Case Evaluations Supervisory Review
Process
Fill Out Evaluation
Form w/ All
Requested
Information
Submit for
Approval To:
Approved & Signed
Off by Trial
Prosecutor
Family Court
Case
Circuit Court
Case
Approved & Signed
Off by Supervisor
Approved & Signed
Off by Division
Chief
Approved & Signed
Off by First Deputy
Prosecuting
Attorney
Approved & Signed
Off by Team
Captain
Sent to Screening
& Intake
Sent to
Investigative
Agency
Source: PAT’s Circuit Court Case Evaluation and Family Court Case Evaluations forms and OCA Analysis

17
Circuit and family court case evaluations require a supervisor’s
signature and date of the evaluation. The department also requires
that a case evaluation be completed at the conclusion of each case.
We reviewed a sample of case evaluations from FY 2015 to FY
2019, and found that 17 of 30 cases (57%) did not have completed
case evaluation forms in their respective files. In one instance
the case evaluation was not submitted to management for review
until two years after sentencing. The inconsistent enforcement
of post evaluation forms weakens another control the department
has to exercise supervision by identifying errors or concerns over
how staff attorneys conducted their work, and providing proper
intervention as appropriate.
A PAT administrator explained that even after a case is charged,
closed, and a case evaluation has been completed, there may still
be disagreements on how a case was handled. In such instances
the disagreements or dispute may be referred to the deputy
attorney for review and approval. This review can potentially
show that an attorney had a conflict or other situation which may
have affected a case outcome. The administrator advised that in
such instances the first deputy prosecuting attorney would orally
discuss the concerns with the staff attorney.
Since the cases have already been completed, case evaluations
may have some utility as a lessons learned example but has little
ability to detect evidence of misconduct or case mishandling
while a case is still ongoing. The post-case nature and uneven
utilization of the case evaluation system is not an effective means
to detect potential staff misconduct or improper case handling.
Good communication within a department is essential for effective
operations. We examined PAT’s practices to receive, process, and
address formal staff concerns or complaints. We found that one
of the primary ways PAT receives internal complaints is through
an anonymous complaint box system. We reviewed complaints
received in this manner and found that seven complaints covered
topics such as poor management communication on dress code
policy, attendance and timekeeping, regulations on use of lamps,
pay raises, courthouse animal, security protocols for visitors,
and guidelines on selling products in the office. We found no
instances of serious employee misconduct or conflict of interest
concerns.
Some of the anonymous complaints were investigated by
management while some were forwarded to an internal
The Department
Lacks a Formal
Internal Evaluation
System

18
investigator. It was not clear from the nature of complaints why
they were handled differently. We also found that there was little
guidance to determine how a complaint should be handled. There
are no criteria or guidelines on who should handle anonymous
complaints. A typical result of the investigations of anonymous
complaints is an email that is sent to all staff by management or by
the investigator that address the complaints and a stated solution
on how it was solved.
While the anonymous complaint box system may encourage staff
to submit complaints with anonymity, this informal framework
lacks sufficient follow-up and resolution. Instead, the department
would be better served by establishing a formal complaint and
resolution structure that not only receives employee complaints
and concerns, but provides appropriate follow-up action. Staff
may be more willing to share concerns if they feel those concerns
will be taken seriously and addressed in an appropriate way.
Our review of PAT’s policies and procedures concluded that the
existing policies and procedures were unlikely to identify that
former Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Katherine Kealoha may
have had conflicts or took questionable actions that affected her
handling of certain cases, including her alleged involvement
to protect her brother from a drug dealing investigation
or her alleged role in fixing a speeding ticket. Supervisory
oversight was inadequate and the department’s reliance on self-
disclosure for conflicts of interest was ineffective, vague, and
did not promote transparency and accountability. Despite the
revelations of Katherine Kealoha’s misconduct and abuse of her
position in the prosecuting attorney’s office, we found that the
department has not made any substantive changes to its policies
or procedures. The department did implement a suggestion/
complaint box and department hotline in 2019 to encourage
employees to come forward and report misconduct. While we
acknowledge these efforts that give staff an opportunity to report
misconduct allegations, it falls short of making systemic changes
to department policies, procedures, and operations to prevent
misconduct or identify misconduct early so that appropriate
action can be taken. Relying on fellow employees to police
each other and report misconduct after-the-fact is not sound
management practices.
There is no evidence of
substantive changes in
PAT’s internal operations
or compliance with
existing policies and
procedures in the First
and Second Superseding
Indicts of misconduct by
Katherine Kealoha

19
In our assessment, there is limited oversight for the prosecuting
attorney. The prosecuting attorney is an elected executive officer
whose performance is not subject to control or oversight review
by the mayor or the city council. At present the prosecuting
attorney can only be removed from office is by impeachment or
recall. Further there are no provisions in the city charter to enable
supervision or oversight over the prosecuting attorney.
The removal of the prosecuting attorney by recall requires a
petition with the signatures of at least 10 percent of the total voters
registered in the last regular election of the prosecuting attorney,
with no more than 40 percent of this total coming from one
city council district. After certification of the recall petition, the
prosecutor would be given the opportunity to resign in ten days.
Otherwise, a recall election would be arranged if the incumbent
prosecutor did not resign prior the recall election date. Recall
petitions may not be filed in the first or last year of a term of office,
or within six months after an unsuccessful recall election. Even
if the prosecuting attorney was found guilty of a crime, voters
would have to petition to impeach and remove the city prosecutor
or petition to recall the prosecutor by special election if the
prosecutor did not resign from office.
We reviewed the oversight practices in other selected jurisdictions
and found examples where a prosecutor was subject to formal
performance evaluations by the city council or mayor.
• In Ojai, California, a performance evaluation is conducted
annually by the city council. The purpose of the evaluation
is to help strengthen relationships, provide a mechanism
for regular evaluation, offer feedback to the attorney
and identify areas where improvements may be needed.
The city attorney is evaluated on criteria such as legal
consultation, legal representation, staff work, cost/fiscal
accountability and control, responsiveness and timeliness
of actions, and communication.
• In the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, the city council
conducts a performance evaluation of the city attorney
within 90 days following every 18-month period of
consecutive service as city attorney. The 18-month period
shall begin after the council’s approval, the city attorney’s
appointment or after the prior performance evaluation,
whichever is more recent. The council develops written
evaluation criteria for this purpose and present its
findings in a public, written report to the mayor and chief
administrative officer.
Oversight of
the Prosecuting
Attorney is Limited

20
Some jurisdictions with elected prosecutors have considered
establishing a commission on prosecutorial conduct to provide
independent oversight over elected prosecutors. This concept
is similar to state commissions on judicial conduct. The Hawai‘i
Commission on Judicial Conduct was set up to investigate
allegations of judicial misconduct and disability. It receives
complaints and supporting information about alleged judicial
misconduct. This concept would provide similar oversight over
elected prosecutors.
The role of the prosecuting attorney is the most important role
to fairly enforce criminal statutes in the City and County of
Honolulu. In appointment jurisdictions, an oversight body such
as the mayor or city council can evaluate the city prosecutor’s
performance and help reduce the potential for misconduct.
In November 2020, Honolulu voters approved a charter
amendment that limits a prosecuting attorney to two consecutive
four-year terms. Although future prosecuting attorneys are
term limited, it does not prevent potential misconduct or poor
performance from occurring unchecked. The city council may still
wish to consider implementing an oversight mechanism.
The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney should:
1. Implement a conflict of interest disclosure affirmation for each
case handled by staff attorneys;
2. Standardize pre- and post- plea bargain case evaluation;
3. Enforce case evaluation requirements for all applicable cases;
4. Amend the staff attorney evaluation process to include specific
action plans or corrective actions, when appropriate; and
5. Establish a formal internal complaint system that describes the
intake process, potential criteria that will be used to evaluate
complaints, timelines, potential outcomes, and action plans, as
appropriate.
The Honolulu City Council should:
1. Consider establishing a commission on prosecutorial conduct,
or similar entity, to annually evaluate the city prosecuting
attorney.
Recommendations

Chapter 3: Complaint Handling Needs Improvement to Prevent Mismanagement and Inappropriate Behavior
21
Chapter 3
Complaint Handling Needs Improvement to
Prevent Mismanagement and Inappropriate
Behavior
The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s (PAT) handling
of internal complaints is inconsistent and does not effectively
identify or address instances of misconduct. Internal complaints
can be a useful tool for management to identify potential cases
of misconduct. We found that PAT does not have a formal
complaint process to manage internal staff complaints. Instead,
the department relies on the use of internal email complaints
or the use of an anonymous information box where written
complaints may be deposited. We concluded that PAT could
improve its complaints processing by ensuring that there are more
specific guidance to ensure that management is fully aware of staff
concerns and has the opportunity to either correct or otherwise
address staff concerns.
Internal departmental complaints are generally about
interpersonal challenges with management and coworkers, issues
relating to work conditions, and problems with discrimination
and harassment on the job. We found that improvements are
needed. The department is not using its complaints process
effectively to monitor for current problems happening in the work
environment. Updated policies and procedures, and improved
training, will likely lead to a better work environment.
The department’s complaint process is informal and relies
either on the submission of a complaint or concern via email or
through submission of an anonymous note in the department’s
information/suggestion box. There is no formal or suggested
format for submission of an email complaint. Use of email
identifies who is submitting the complaint and does not promote
anonymity. Furthermore, emails are not secure as they can easily
be forwarded or lost.
In 2019, PAT implemented use of an information/suggestion box
located in its conference room where written complaints may
also be submitted. While a complaint’s author could choose to
be identified, it appears that this was intended to facilitate the
submittal of anonymous complaints. Management reports that it
monitors the information box regularly.
Department Has an
Informal Complaint
Process

22
After a complaint is filed and received, management (the acting
prosecuting attorney, executive assistant or the administrative
service officer) reviews and assesses how the complaint
should be addressed. If a decision is made to review the
complaint internally, the complaint is either further reviewed
by management or assigned to an internal investigator to assess
and determine the appropriate course of action. An internal
investigator could be assigned to evaluate the complaint. This
investigator is a PAT employee and prosecution team member.
This prosecution team member is someone who normally
conducts case investigations and has investigation experience.
Complaints related to hostile work environment, harassment, or
discrimination are generally referred outside of the department
for review and resolution. External agencies include the Equal
Opportunity Office, Department of Human Resources, or a
private investigation agency such as Star Protection Agency. The
complaint handling process is shown in Exhibit 3.1.
Complaint handling
assessment

23
We reviewed complaints submitted to management in for the
five-year period from FY 2015 to FY 2019. During this period, the
department received 65 internal complaints from its staff. In
FY 2018, there were 30 complaints, and in FY 2019, 23 complaints.
Of the 65 complaints, we judgmentally sampled 22 internal
complaints and reviewed the department’s internal complaint
process.
Complaints involved the following topic areas:
• Eleven complaints of hostile work environment,
harassment, discrimination, 6 of which were referred for
an external assessment;
• Seven complaints of violation of the respectful workplace
policy;
• One complaint of the unauthorized use of access;
Exhibit 3.1
Complaint Process
Complaint
Preliminary
Management Review
Internal Assessment
Further Management
Review
Action:
Outcome Disposition
External Assessment
Investigate
Obtain
Information
Assess
Information
Internal Investigator
Investigate Investigate
Action:
Outcome Disposition
Obtain
Information
Assess
Information
Action:
Outcome Disposition
Obtain
Information
Assess
Information
Department is receiving
many complaints about
workplace issues

24
• One breach of confidential agreement;
• One complaint insubordination, and;
• One complaint performing work related duties on comp
leave.
Exhibit 3.2 shows how the complaints were distributed and the
outcomes from an internal assessment or external assessment
review.

25
Exhibit 3.2
Complaint Review
#
Complaint
Subject
Internal
Assessment
External
Assessment Outcome
1
Hostile work environment,
harassment, discrimination
✔
Advised a Right to Sue;
Case Closed
2
✔
Insufficient Evidence;
Case Closed
3
✔
Sustained;
Letter Was Issued
4
✔
Case Closed
5
✔
Case Closed
6
✔
Case Closed
7
✔
Case Closed
8
✔
Case Closed
9
✔
Case Close
10
✔
Case was reviewed
internally then later referred
to an external agency to
handle, resulting that no
further action is necessary;
Case Close
11
✔
Case was initially closed
due to insufficient evidence
and later open which was
forwarded to another
agency
12
Violation of the respectful
workplace policy
✔
Case Close
13
workplace policy
✔
Case Close
14
workplace policy
✔
Case Close
15
workplace policy
✔ Suspension
16
workplace policy
✔ Written Reprimand
17
workplace policy
✔ Disciplinary Action
18
workplace policy
✔ Disciplinary Action
19 Unauthorized use of access ✔ Verbal Warning
20
Breach of confidential
agreement
✔
Case Close
21 Insubordination ✔ Oral Reprimand
22
Performing work related duties
on comp leave
✔ Advise

26
We found that the department handles complaints inconsistently.
Department administrators arbitrarily decide each time how to
handle a complaint rather than follow set guidelines for assessing,
reviewing, investigating, and resolving complaints. There are
no written guidelines to help management assess whether these
should be reviewed internally or be referred externally, and
complainants have no guidance or expectation for how their
complaints will be addressed. In our review, 68 percent of
complaints were handled internally by the department. We were
unable to determine the rationale for why some of the complaints
were referred to the external agency and some were not. PAT
does not document how it administers complaints.
Specifically, our review found that:
• There are no clear guidelines or defined process
for handling complaints, which guides acceptance,
assessment, information gathering, review, and
disposition. For example, we found that four of the
complaints that were handled internally, concerning
hostile work environment, harassment, and discrimination
complaints, were not sustained due to lack of evidence.
However, there is no formal criteria or guidance for either
the reviewer or the complainant.
• We also found that there is no documented guidance for
selecting internal investigators or other staff to be assigned
as complaint reviewers. Internal investigators are trained
to investigate crime for prosecution, but this does not
provide assurance that they will appropriately investigate
a human resource or workplace issue complaint.
• There is no assessment of independence before handling
a complaint case. We found no assurance that conflicts of
interest are declared and reviewers are independent.
• The external reviews, unlike the department’s internal
review process, provided a more defined complaint
handling process, assurance of complete review, and was
independent.
• External reviews also added value after sustaining
a complaint by identifying training needs that may
help avoid or prevent future complaints or workplace
environment violations.
We found that there are procedural differences in complaint
handling between internally and externally reviewed complaints.

27
For internal reviews, management and internal investigators do
not have a formal review guide, policy, procedure, or criteria
to review complaints. Comparatively, we found that external
reviewers follow more structured procedures for conducting
their review. The external review provided a better complaint
handling process and assurance of complete review, which was
also independent.
Our sample review included seven respectful workplace
complaints. Two of the complaints were forwarded to the Equal
Opportunity Office (EEO) but were returned because the EEO
lacked jurisdiction over the complaints. As a result all seven
respectful workplace complaints were reviewed internally. We
were unable to determine why PAT chose initially to refer two
complaints to the EEO and address the others in-house since there
is no documentation regarding the decisions.
Similar to the hostile working environment complaints, there
are no formal review guidelines or policy and procedures for
reviewing complaints.
When an internal investigator completes their review of the
complaint and investigation, a findings report is prepared for
management’s review. Based on the report, management decides
on the appropriate action to take.
These seven internally reviewed complaints resulted in:
• Three were closed due to lack of evidence;
• One sustained complaint led to a two-day suspension;
• One sustained complaint led to a written reprimand; and
• Two resulted in disciplinary action.
While four of the seven respectful workplace complaints resulted
in some type of disciplinary action we found no evidence that
management made any adjustments to PAT’s policies, procedures,
or training to prevent future occurrence.
Between FY 2015 and FY 2019, PAT received 65 internal
complaints. Of the 65 complaints, 11 related to hostile work
environment and 7 involved respectful workplace complaints.
Combined, these two types of serious workplace complaints
represented 28 percent of the total complaints filed.
Most respectful
workplace complaints
are handled internally
Hostile work
environment complaints
may indicate serious
concerns about
workplace safety

28
Despite the relatively high number and proportion of serious
workplace complaints, we found no evidence that management
sought to update or assess its policies and procedures to improve
the workplace environment. Instead, we found that management
responds to complaints individually, but does not evaluate the
overall impact that complaint trends may have on the work
environment. PAT’s current approach to addressing workplace
misconduct is punitive, rather than corrective.
Training is essential to ensure that managers, supervisors and staff
have the proper skills to effectively do their jobs. In discussions
with attorneys about supervisory and leadership training, we
found that supervisors do not regularly attend supervisory
training. Because supervisors are tasked with reviewing
and assessing employee conduct, performance, and internal
complaints, they should be properly trained to effectively conduct
such assessments.
PAT does not have specific policies to address attorney
misconduct. As previously noted, attorneys are required to
adhere to the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8.
Performing the Duty of Public Prosecutor or Other Government Lawyer.
We found no specific departmental policies and procedures
addressing the handling of attorney misconduct.
Management has the duty to report attorney misconduct to
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The department has not
developed any review procedures to identify and determine if an
attorney is committing misconduct. There is no guidance from
management that attorneys or supervisors should be aware of the
possibility of misconduct, or how to identify it and report it as
necessary to management for review and resolution. Absent such
guidelines, staff and management may not be aware of potential
misconduct and are unable to address it in a timely manner.
We confirmed with PAT management that the department did
not file any reports to the Office of Disciplinary Council during
the FY 2015 to FY 2019 time period for violation of professional
conduct. We also reviewed the list of disciplined Hawai‘i
attorneys and verified with management that no other department
attorneys were disciplined over the past five years other than the
former prosecuting attorney Katherine Kealoha. PAT noted that
no other departmental attorneys have been disciplined by the
office of Disciplinary Counsel. If a PAT attorney is investigated
More training is needed
The Department
Lacks a Formal
Process to Deal
With Attorney
Misconduct

29
by the Disciplinary Board such as a compliant of unethical
misconduct, the department does not get informed or involved
with the investigation process. Rather, the department is notified
when a final outcome from the disciplinary board if an attorney’s
misconduct is sustained. We believe that having a formal
misconduct handling process that routes misconduct complaints
to disciplinary counsel would help management identify and
respond to internal misconduct similar to Katherine Kealoha.
We compared PAT’s practice for addressing attorney misconduct
with a sample of other jurisdictions’ practices. Our review
showed that each prosecuting attorney offices we reviewed
have formal reporting methods for attorney misconduct.
Throughout the process, complaints about attorney misconduct
are forwarded to a designated oversight body to administer. The
prosecutor’s offices we reviewed were: The Baltimore City State’s
Attorney’s Office, Denver District Attorney, Multnomah County
District Attorney, Seattle City Attorney, and the Wayne County
Prosecuting Attorney. Exhibit 3.3 displays an overview of the
complaint handling process that the various prosecutor’s office
used in their offices.
Attorney misconduct
handling process in
other jurisdictions

30
The department should evaluate misconduct processing
procedures from these and other jurisdictions to implement its
own formal procedures. Having a formal process for handling
attorney misconduct complaints could improve department
oversight. This may increase public confidence because there is
a process for management to identify and respond to potential
misconduct complaints.
Exhibit 3.3
Jurisdiction Comparison on Complaint’s Handling
Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office
Denver District Attorney
Multnomah County District Attorney
Seattle City Attorney
Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney
Complaint
Received
Bar Counsel
Investigates
Sent to
Attorney
Grievance
Commision
Petitions for
Disciplinary or
Remedial
Action Filed
Hold a
Hearing at
Court of
Appeals
Complaint
Received
Central
Intake
Processes
Attorney
Investigates
Forwarded
to the Trial
Division
Attorney
Regulation
Committee
Hearing
Board
Complaint
Received
Client
Assistance
Office
Reviews
Investigation
Sent to the
Disciplinary
Counsel
State
Professional
Responsibility
Board
Complaint
Received
Disciplinary
Counsel
Reviews
Investigation
Sent to the
Disciplinary
Board
Order a
Hearing
Public
Discipline
Complaint
Received
Intake Division
Processes
Sent to Staff
Counsel to
Investigate
Sent to
Attorney
Grievance
Commission
Sent to
Attorney
Discipline
Board
Source: Various websites

31
1. Implement policies, procedures and practices to identify,
respond, correct and prevent erroneous and unethical
behavior;
2. Develop a formal internal process for managing employee
complaints; and
3. Provide supervisory and other appropriate training related to
complaint handling and disposition.
Recommendations

32
This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations
33
Chapter 4
Conclusion and Recommendations
The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s (PAT) office
adheres to the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules of the
Supreme Court, and Rules of the Disciplinary Board. Each staff
attorney self-polices and is held individually accountable to
their duties and responsibilities. The former deputy prosecuting
attorney’s alleged misdeeds have raised concerns about
misconduct and the department’s ability to identify, respond,
correct, and prevent such misconduct. The department is led by
temporary leadership due to affected personnel who have been
placed on leave and undergoing federal investigation. Despite the
controversies and allegations in PAT, policies, procedures, and
controls within the prosecuting attorney department have not
changed significantly and more needs to be done. The department
needs to be motivated to make changes necessary to identify and
prevent misconduct.
Improvements in the conflict case policy is warranted to help staff
avoid, minimize, or prevent conflict of interest and to maintain
independence. It would be useful if the department provided staff
with pertinent information and guidelines so they can determine
when a conflict of interest exists and the protocols for reporting
and evaluating misconduct. This would allow management to
more effectively exercise proper oversight.
From a supervisory perspective, the department should
standardize its supervisory review for plea bargaining in circuit
court cases. This would ensure consistency in the supervisory
process and assure that tasks have been thoroughly reviewed
and completed. By standardizing the supervisory process, staff
and supervisors are more active during the process and can more
readily identify potential issues and address them in a timely
manner.
Employees report instances of misconduct within the office.
However, the current informal complaint handling process is
not effective for properly managing the workplace environment.
The department relies on informal processes or an information
box to identify and receive workplace complaints. This reactive
approach places workplace monitoring solely on employees and
management is unaware of potential problems until it is brought
to their attention. Instead, the department should consider a
more proactive approach by establishing formal guidelines
Conclusion

34
for staff to identify and report misconduct and establish an
appropriate corrective action plan. This would encourage staff
to come forward with complaints and have the assurance that
there is a formal process in place to identify and respond to
misconduct complaints effectively. Routine training, specific to
the department, would also improve the workplace environment.
1. Implement a conflict of interest disclosure affirmation for each
case handled by staff attorneys;
2. Standardize pre- and post- plea bargain case evaluation;
3. Enforce case evaluation requirements for all applicable cases;
4. Amend the staff attorney evaluation process to include specific
action plans or corrective actions, when appropriate;
5. Establish a formal internal complaint system that describes the
intake process, potential criteria that will be used to evaluate
complaints, timelines, potential outcomes, and action plans, as
appropriate;
6. Implement policies, procedures and practices to identify,
respond, correct and prevent erroneous and unethical
behavior;
7. Develop a formal internal process for managing employee
complaints; and
8. Provide supervisory and other appropriate training related to
complaint handling and disposition.
The Honolulu City Council should:
9. Consider establishing a commission on prosecutorial conduct,
or similar entity, to annually evaluate the City Prosecutor.
The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney (PAT) indicated that
while it was not in complete agreement with the audit’s findings,
it acknowledged that it must restore the public confidence and
trust in the department lost after the Kealoha matter. It was
willing to consider making improvements to address issues
Recommendations
Management
Response

35
raised by our audit findings. The department commented on
several aspects of the audit. We provide the following clarifying
comments.
This was an audit of the department’s policies, procedures, and
controls, and not an investigation. The department commented
that the audit report does not cite specific instances of misconduct
that Ms. Katherine Kealoha was convicted for in the federal
trial, which directly related to the course and scope of her
employment as a deputy prosecuting attorney. This comment
seems to misunderstand the city council’s reason for requesting
this audit. We were not asked to investigate and discover specific
instances of misconduct that related to her employment as a
deputy prosecuting attorney, or within the office generally. Our
audit was tasked to review whether the department’s existing
policies, procedures, and controls were sufficient to prevent
similar misconduct, retaliation, favoritism, and abuses of power
by its respective employees, and whether the department
complied with its existing policies, procedures, and controls. We
also recommended improvements and corrective measures to
minimize future managerial or operational breakdowns. This is
what we did in the audit.
We understand that the department’s current administration
is in a difficult position and under increased scrutiny after the
Kealoha matter. Interim leadership is responsible to ensure that
cases can be appropriately evaluated, reviewed, and prosecuted,
while also making improvements it feels are necessary to avoid
similar problems from occurring in the future. We acknowledge
the current efforts to maintain a culture of professionalism
that expects and demands the highest levels of competence,
ethics, and professionalism, and the high expectations for
professional conduct within the legal profession. We considered
management’s response from this point of view and note that
there is opportunity for the newly-elected prosecuting attorney to
further consider our recommendations.
The department indicated that the increasing caseloads without
adequate funding have caused staff to do more with less and
provided clarifying information about when its supervisors
have opportunities to review cases during the plea bargaining
process. Management also acknowledged there are differences
in supervision, and that changes could be made to improve
consistency and its monitoring. We emphasize that there is a
need for uniform supervision to effectively manage the increasing
caseload volume. We reiterate that supervisors have insufficient
time to supervise or track all cases. Thus, supervisors rely on their
relationship with subordinates and trust their staff to self-manage.

36
The department would benefit from more consistent monitoring
and supervision throughout the case process.
The department commented that developing a routine assessment
procedure and signing an affirmation for potential conflicts does
little to ensure that conflicts are identified and timely disclosed.
However, management acknowledged it could provide guidance
to its attorneys where it can. In our view, a routine assessment
procedure or self-declaration would improve the administrative
process and heighten the department’s ethical culture.
In regards to our sample review of internal complaints from
FY 2015 to FY 2019, we note that disciplinary action was taken
on some of the violations of the respectful workplace complaints.
However, the department can improve by making adjustments
to its policies, procedures, or training to prevent future
violations. Lastly, the department seemed unable to verify or
review the processes of other jurisdictions described for formal
reporting methods for attorney misconduct. Our point is if there is a
misconduct complaint or suspected misconduct, we believe that it
would be beneficial for the department to have a process in place
that directs the misconduct complaint to the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel for independent review.
The department’s comments notwithstanding, we stand by
our audit findings and recommendations. We did not make
any significant amendments to the audit report as a result
of management’s response, but we made technical, non-
substantive changes to the draft report for purposes of accuracy,
clarity, and style. We thank the Department of the Prosecuting
Attorney’s Office who assisted us during this review. A copy of
management’s full response can be found on page 37.

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Appendix A: Conflict Case Policy
49
Appendix A
Conflict Case Policy
Source: PAT
Source: Department of the Prosecuting Attorney

Appendix A: Conflict Case Policy
50

Appendix B: Resolution 19-255
51
Appendix B
Resolution 19-255

52

53

54

Appendix C: Resolution 20-267
55
Appendix C
Resolution 20-267

56

57

58

Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Procedures, and Controls

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Procedures, and Controls

Similar to Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Procedures, and Controls (20)

More from Honolulu Civil Beat

More from Honolulu Civil Beat (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Procedures, and Controls